By. Smt. Beena. M, Member:-
This is a complaint preferred under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Brief facts of the case are given below:-
The Complainant and the Opposite Party entered into an agreement for the construction of house on 24.03.2022 and rate of construction was fixed as Rs.2,050/- per Sq. feet for total built up area of 1900 Sq. feet. The Opposite Party agreed to complete the work within 340 days from the date of 24.04.2022 and subsequently, the measurement of area upgraded to 2150 Sq.mtr. Then the Complainant paid Rs.6,13,462.50/- which is 15% of the total cost through account transfer, Rs.1,50,000/- on 12.04.2022, Rs.50,006/- on 23.04.2022, Rs.50,006/- on 23.04.2022, Rs.1,04,504/- on 30.04.2022, Rs.4,00,000/- on 02.12.2022, Rs.3,00,000/- on 30.01.2023, and Rs.1,50,000/- on 07.02.2023. Altogether the Opposite Party collected Rs.18,17,979/-. For that the Opposite Party had issued receipts only for Rs.6,13462.50/- and Rs.2,04,487.50/-. After the commencement of the construction work of the house, the Opposite Party intentionally dragged the work without any valid reasons; he pressurized and received huge amounts in advance. When the Opposite Party failed to come to the site on 07.02.2023 after completing the construction of the lintel of the house, the Complainant tried to contact the Opposite Party through phone. The Opposite Party picked up the call one or two times and threatened the Complainant and thereafter, he did not attend the call, and most of the time he switched off the phone. According to the agreement signed by the Opposite Party, the entire work of the house was to be completed within 340 days from 24.04.2022. But during the period of one year, the Opposite Party constructed only lintel level. The Opposite Party collected more than 18 lakhs rupees from the Complainant and the work done by him is only for 8 lakhs. On inquiry, it was learned that the Opposite Party had not filed the GST return, nor has paid the GST collected from the complainant. The Opposite Party cheated one David Krishnagiri, Varghese Pulpalli, and Anil Kalpatta in the same way. The Opposite Party threatened the Complainant saying that he would not allow the Complainant to complete the work, if further payments were not paid. If the work of the house is not completed yet, there will be difficulties in the rainy season. The Complainant collected money to construct house by taking a bank loan and borrowings from others. The Complainant has regularly paid Rs.17,000/- to UCO Bank as repayment. Hence, this Complaint.
3. After the admission of the Complaint, the Commission issued summons to the Opposite Party. But the Opposite Party did not appear and the Commission set them ex-parte.
4. The Complainant had submitted affidavit and adduced oral evidence. He was examined as PW1 and the agreement produced was marked as Ext.A1, Cash receipts marked as Ext.A2 Series, Statement of account issued by UCO bank marked as Ext.A3 series and the Commission Report marked as Ext. C1. The grievance of the Complainant was that Opposite Party failed to complete the work of house construction of the Complainant within stipulated time as agreed. It is the case of the Complainant that work up to the lintel level was completed within one year from the date of agreement. The value of the work assessed by the Commissioner is Rs.8,80,026/-, the Complainant has paid Rs.18,17,979/. Hence excess payment of Rs.9,37,953/- is seen excess payment as per the commission report. On the other hand, notice of summons was returned to this commission as unclaimed and therefore, the complaint proceeded against the Opposite Party. In our view as the Opposite Party did not challenge the allegation made in the Complaint. As the case of the Complainant is fully supported by the documents Ext.A1 to A3 and C1, the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought by him along with compensation and costs of the complaint. The Commission found that there is deficiency of service, unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed with cost.
- The agreement dated 24.03.2022 is hereby annulled.
- The interim order passed by the Commission in IA.342/2023 is now made absolute.
- The Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.9,37,953/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Nine Fifty Three Only) with 9% interest and Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh only) as compensation
- Restraining the opposite party form committing any act of waste, damage, and disturbance to the Complainant and his property.
- The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.8,000/-(Rupees Eight Thousand Only) towards cost.
The above amounts shall be paid to the Complainant within one month from the date of this Order, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of this Order till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 19th day of August 2023.
Date of Filing:-22.04.2022.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Jayan. P. K. Instructor in Engineering.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Agreement for construction. Dt:24.03.2022.
A2(Series). Receipts (2 Numbers).
A3. Statement of Account for the period of 05.03.2022 to 09.05.2023.
C1. Commissioner Report. Dt:02.06.2023.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
